Ask Lord Bobo: Strange Olympics, Selective Prosecution

From the Selangor Times 10 August 2012. Ask Lord Bobo is a weekly column by LoyarBurok where all your profound, abstruse, erudite, hermetic, recondite, sagacious, and other thesaurus-described queries are answered!

Dear Lord Bobo, what do you think of this human event called the Olympics? (Go for Gold, via email)

The Olympics is a curious thing. Lord Bobo has been most mystified by it. Admittedly, we have been glued to our television screens every single day, channel-surfing the variety of sports on offer. And really, calling some of these “sports” is stretching it.

Two things have really baffled Lord Bobo.

First was the 3D channel on Astro. His Supreme Eminenceness may be omniscient, but some of this new technology can be a challenge.

It took a bit of time before we realised why that particular channel had a split screen with the same image on each side. We did try crossing our eyes to watch it, but that didn’t help.

A supreme Olympian. And some bloke.

Anyway, the second thing is – how are the Olympic sports selected?

We used to think that the events involved would be the “traditional” athletic ones. You know, the running different distances, high jump, long jump, discus, shot putt, etc. All these are not contentious.

But who on earth decided to include dressage?

Lord Bobo tuned in to this one day and thought “why are horses in the Olympics?” But never mind, we persisted out of curiousity and watched the warm-up. Or what we thought was the warm-up. It turned out to be the event itself.

Basically, a horse was prancing around apparently aimlessly, perhaps trying to shake off a rather odd-looking overdressed man sat on its back. The commentator was excited enough – “Ooh look at that transition!” (apparently changing speed and going from a skip to a skip-hop to a skip-with-one-leg-straight is part of the excitement here).

What we really wonder is why the human got the medal when the horse was doing all the hard work.

Other strange sports that really should not be in the Olympics include canoe slalom (fake white-water rafting in man-made pool, really?), handball (who on earth plays handball?), beach volleyball (well okay, maybe the women’s event is okay), and synchronised swimming (who invented this?).

And Lord Bobo can’t understand why, if all these “sports” are included, then how come popular events like golf, netball (hey, come on, handball is in!) and squash are not.

Admittedly, the last one may just be in the hope that Nicol David would surely bring home a gold medal.

Having said all that, it definitely is unique entertainment. We’re pretty sure that it is the only time when so many people are glued to their televisions watching people they’ve never heard of take part in events that they never knew existed.

Oh, we almost forgot – trampolining?! Surely it’s just a matter of time before speed-stacking is on the roster. If you’ve never heard of this, please look it up. It’s on ESPN you know?

Lord Bobo, do you think the prosecution of Rafizi Ramli and Johari Mohamad is just? (Legal Beagle, via email)

The prosecution of Rafizi and Johari for alleged breaches of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (Bafia) in relation to the National Feedlot Corp (NFC) scandal was seemingly misguided, shocking, and smacked of selective prosecution. Which in Malaysian politics basically means that it really should have been expected.

They are said to have breached Bafia provisions when revealing details of bank accounts related to the NFC and its chairman.

The NFC scandal has been well documented and His Supreme Eminenceness does not wish to regurgitate all the beefy details.

Suffice to say that the details uncovered by Rafizi and Johari led to more meaty discoveries. The NFC’s chairman, Datuk Seri Mohd Salleh Ismail, has since been charged for criminal breach of trust.

This all seems well and good of course, and a classic case to show the importance of whistleblower protection. Except that now the whistleblowers are being handcuffed and prosecuted.

There is, as Lord Bobo has repeatedly said, a difference between the law and justice. Whilst there can be not much argument against the fact that Bafia was breached, the question is in what way is it in the interests of justice that Rafizi and Johari be prosecuted.

Oh yes, of course, there are many queueing up to bleat on about how “they broke the law, so they must be punished!” Do we really think that everyone who has broken, is currently breaking, and will continue to break the law is really going to be targeted as these two were? Honestly?

The government and its enforcement arm like to say that they are serious about fighting corruption. By bringing out the handcuffs and selectively prosecuting Rafizi and Johari, their actions speak far louder than their repeated utterances.

Have a question for Lord Bobo? Call on His Supreme Eminenceness by emailing [email protected], stating your full name, and a pseudonym (if you want), or tweeting your questions by mentioning @LoyarBurok and using the hashtag #asklordbobo. What the hell are you waiting for? Hear This, and Tremblingly Obey (although trembling is optional if you are somewhere very warm)! Liberavi Animam Meam! I Have Freed My Spirit!

You can read archives of all the Ask Lord Bobo columns by clicking here. These are the divinely-inspired words of His Supreme Eminenceness Lord Bobo Barnabus PhD SP GBE OMGWTFBBQ.

Ask Lord Bobo is a weekly column by LoyarBurok where all your profound, abstruse, erudite, hermetic, recondite, sagacious, and other thesaurus-described queries are answered! It is the ONLY place that His Supreme Eminenceness' thoughts are regularly channeled, via His Lordship's most loyal meditating purple-banana munching minions.

Posted on 10 August 2012.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.

In the scenario where Rafizi is convicted – Meaning he broke the all the rule. Does it mean that all the evidence connected to this rule-breaking will then be disallowed in court, thus making the case against NFC's chairman a no-brainer – as in all related-evidence admitted will be ruled out. Without any evidence, there will no longer be any trial.